DEVINDER GUPTA Vs. GENERAL MANAGER SRINAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant has filed this complaint against the non-applicants with the allegations that the telephone bearing old No.46267/new No.31287, is installed at his residence at Gandhinagar, Jammu. He received a bill amounting to Rs.9,142.00 for the period 1.1.1989 to 28.2.1990. He states that the bill received by him is much inflated. But, after representation to the Department, the bill was amended to Rs.3,142/-. He deposited Rs.3,142/- with the Department. Later on, on 19.3.1990, the Department without any notice disconnected his telephone due to non-payment of balance of Rs.6,000/- against the bill in dispute. The complainant alleges that the disconnection of the telephone without any proper notice was a clear case of high handedness on the pan of the non-applicants. He prays for the reasonable reduction of the amount of the disputed bills and further demanded Rs.10,000/- as compensation from the opposite party for the mental tension and lot of inconvenience because of unjust act of the Telephone Department

(2.) On 12.4.1990, the notices alongwith the copies of the complaint were sent to the non-applicants directing them to file their version of the case within 30 days of the notices, failing which the Forum shall proceed ex parte to settle the dispute of the complainant- consumer under the provisions of the J and K Consumer Protection Act, 1987. Notice to non- applicant No.1 was sent under registered cover. As prayed the telephone connection of telephone No.31287, was ordered to be restored forthwith. On the next date of hearing i. e. on 14.5.1990, on behalf of the non-applicant No.2. Mr. T. K. Raina. an employee of the Telephone Department appeared but the non-applicant No.1 despite service through registered notice, did not appear. So the ex parte proceedings were ordered against him. On 6.6.1990, the non-applicant No.2 filed his version of the case. On 19.11.1990, the complainant filed rejoinder to the version filed by the non-applicant No.2. During the proceedings the learned Counsel for the non-applicant No.2, raised a plea that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear the cases against the Telephone Department. But, on the next date of hearing i. e. on 29.6.1990, the learned Counsel for the non-applicant No.2, made an application stating that he concedes the point of jurisdiction and further urged that this Forum has the jurisdiction to hear complaints against the Telephone Department. In support of the case, Mr. Subhash Gupta, the attorney and the brother of the complainant recorded his statements as the witness of the complainant. He had not examined any other witness. The non-applicant No.2 told the Forum that he will not adduce any evidence in the case.

(3.) The arguments have been heard and I have gone through the statements of the witness of the complainant and the relevant record of the file carefully.